Update #74: The Mob Rulers: Wizards and Druids and our Partnership with Paradox

[Barothmuk]

Yeah, I can sort of see that. Shame the concept art didn't translate over.

 

Oh well, it's probably set in stone now anyways.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Barothmuk

[rjshae]

Yeah, I can sort of see that. Shame the concept art didn't translate over.

 

Oh well, it's probably set in stone now anyways.

 

One might explain it way by saying that the morph reshapes the gender-specific features. I.e. both males and females reshape into a singular animal form. After all, human gender characteristics aren't necessarily in the same form on other animals.

[forgottenlor]

 

Will the models for shifted form differ between the genders?

 

No.  Druids' forms are costly on their own.  Making sex-specific variants would be an even larger investment of time.

 

 

I think explanations like this are very good. There are some things which players might find nice to have, but when we see that the costs for something like sex specific shifted forms are extremely work or money intensive, then it is clear (to me at least) that funds (or time) are best dedicated elsewhere,

Edited March 23, 2014 by forgottenlor

[Lephys]

I was talking about buffing before the encounter of course because otherwise the whole strategy wouldn't make any sense, but:

Yeah, sorry about that. I was trying to point out that the powerful buffing being talked about was in-combat only. The reason being the trade-off, as opposed to just "I'll put 5 cool effects on me before we even start this fight," which would be super OP if that were allowed AND buffs were quite powerful (individually and potentially).

 

I totally missed that. That sounds a little bit stupid to me I have to say. Does this only affect spells that have a duration or also healing and stuff like that?

I understand it sounds a bit stupid, at first... "glance." But, bear in mind, you're most likely thinking of a very specific, familiar buff system, just with pre-combat buffing ripped out of it.

 

This entire spell system is designed with only-in-combat casting in mind for buffs. The buffs being generally more powerful, overall, is just one example of the types of adjustments that will be in place (from what we're used to, with pre-buffing) to compensate. It won't just be "Now I have to pull off the exact same strategies I did in IE games with buffs, but I can't start until combat starts." There will be a different dynamic going on with buffs.

 

I can't say "YOU'LL ALL DEFINITELY LOVE THAT!", but I encourage people to see the potential, and hopefully it will be pleasing once people have tried it out. It's just really easy to hear about stuff like that, and intuitively imagine a lesser system than existing ones -- as if its the same system with a gap, or an extra restriction, and that's that. It's just because that's what human brains do when we're familiar with something and aren't familiar with all the nuances and differences of something new that's similar. The loss hits as more significant than unfamiliar, unspecified gains.

[Ffordesoon]

Am I the only one who starts humming the Aqua Teen Hunger Force theme every time he reads "the mob rulers?"

[rdmcnz]

Wizards have a blast effect when using Wands, Rods and Sceptres, but my traditional Wizard weapon/focus item is a staff. Is there something that encourages a Wizard to use a staff?

I liked the idea that the potential effect of a focus increased with the size of the focus, but could also be modified by the rarity of components and working put into its creation. Is this something that would feature in PoE lore?

[Lephys]

Wizards have a blast effect when using Wands, Rods and Sceptres, but my traditional Wizard weapon/focus item is a staff. Is there something that encourages a Wizard to use a staff?

 

I liked the idea that the potential effect of a focus increased with the size of the focus, but could also be modified by the rarity of components and working put into its creation. Is this something that would feature in PoE lore?

I second that question about staves. At the very least, it'd be cool if a staff were to a wand/scepter/rod as a greatsword/polearm is to a longsword/shortsword. Maybe better range and potency, versus weaker, faster attacks with the one-handed magical implement AND the ability to wield a shield?

 

OR, mayhaps the staves all hold the active-use charges of spell-like effects, and the rods/scepters/wands are just weapons? *shrug*

[mudd1]

I understand it sounds a bit stupid, at first... "glance." But, bear in mind, you're most likely thinking of a very specific, familiar buff system, just with pre-combat buffing ripped out of it.

This entire spell system is designed with only-in-combat casting in mind for buffs. The buffs being generally more powerful, overall, is just one example of the types of adjustments that will be in place (from what we're used to, with pre-buffing) to compensate. It won't just be "Now I have to pull off the exact same strategies I did in IE games with buffs, but I can't start until combat starts." There will be a different dynamic going on with buffs.

 

I can't say "YOU'LL ALL DEFINITELY LOVE THAT!", but I encourage people to see the potential, and hopefully it will be pleasing once people have tried it out. It's just really easy to hear about stuff like that, and intuitively imagine a lesser system than existing ones -- as if its the same system with a gap, or an extra restriction, and that's that. It's just because that's what human brains do when we're familiar with something and aren't familiar with all the nuances and differences of something new that's similar. The loss hits as more significant than unfamiliar, unspecified gains.

 

 

From a pure gameplay point of view I can totally see the potential. I'm just saying that a set of things you can arbitrarily only do while there are enemies around always feels really odd. I'm always like "Ok, please let me declare a blood feud on that tree over there because I want to cast a spell! I just can't do magic while I'm not bashing someone's head in." But maybe we can pay peasants to let us use non-lethal force on them when we want to do magic

[Lephys]

From a pure gameplay point of view I can totally see the potential. I'm just saying that a set of things you can arbitrarily only do while there are enemies around always feels really odd. I'm always like "Ok, please let me declare a blood feud on that tree over there because I want to cast a spell! I just can't do magic while I'm not bashing someone's head in." But maybe we can pay peasants to let us use non-lethal force on them when we want to do magic

It's not like I don't understand the strangeness of, in isolation, being incapable of casting a spell just because there's no threat around. However, there are plenty of things you can't do in the game, simply because the game refuses to let you. There are ALL those locations on the map you can't travel to. Look, that one's even on your way to another place? Along the road itself? Can't go there. Why? Because there's no content there for you to go to. It makes literally no sense, in the game world. But, it's the way it is, and it makes sense from a game design perspective.

 

You SHOULD be able to burn entire forests down with fire magic, easily. But, you can't. Why not? I don't know. There might even be a good reason. Maybe you're fleeing like 500 orcs, and they're chasing you through a dense forest. Get to the edge with haste, spin about, and set it ablaze. But you can't.

 

It's really no different. The restriction to combat-casting has gameplay-related ramifications that are simply gone if you can just cast stuff before you even walk in. Whether or not the lore supports it is another issue, but I see no reason why it couldn't. There's already no healing magic in PoE's world. People questioned that. Maybe magic is also limited in that you cannot maintain a spell effect for very long on a person. Thus, it's not so much that you can't cast outside of combat (in-character... in the game world/lore, I mean), but that no one would, really. Sure, you'd spot some foes, then cast your spells, then attack. But, maybe casting spells that close to foes gives away your position. And maybe moving to the minimum safe distance to not be detected casting your spells would put you so far away that, by the time you pre-cast, then ran back to engage those foes in combat, your spells would wear off mere seconds into the fight. Stuff like that.

 

Nothing dictates that magic has to work a certain way. And they have a reason for it from the game design perspective (having to cast in-combat drastically changes the approach to tactics people take, since you can't just rely upon pre-cast spells and always build on top of that when combat starts). That's good enough for me.

 

Like I said, it's a trade-off. What you lose in casting outside of combat, you gain something in place of when you must cast within combat (and/or start combat when you cast spells).

[Stun]

From a pure gameplay point of view I can totally see the potential. I'm just saying that a set of things you can arbitrarily only do while there are enemies around always feels really odd. I'm always like "Ok, please let me declare a blood feud on that tree over there because I want to cast a spell! I just can't do magic while I'm not bashing someone's head in." But maybe we can pay peasants to let us use non-lethal force on them when we want to do magic

Reading this post of yours just gave me shivers. And I *hope* PoE doesn't do this. One of my biggest pet peeves is when games have "combat modes" and "non-combat modes", and all gameplay details hinge on these modes.

 

For example:

 

Non-combat mode - Characters have specific 'liesure' walks. Magic items don't glow. Characters have their weapons sheathed and cannot unsheathe them. Characters can't cast any spells.

 

Combat mode- Characters are in an eternal 'fighting stance'. Magic items suddenly show their enchantment graphics. Weapons suddenly become unsheathed. The spell casting icon suddenly turns on and characters are free to cast spells.

 

I dislike games that have this system. If you can even call it a system. All it is, is a developer's hamfisted attempt to corral gameplay so that the player doesn't do something considered "wrong". Like attack non-hostiles. Or initiate combat before it's meant to be initiated.

 

The dragon age games did this. Its a really *rotten* design.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Stun

[Ffordesoon]

Considering that one of the design goals is to let the player kill everyone in the game, I don't see that restriction being likely.  What I suspect is closer to the truth is that buffs will be designed to only be necessary in combat.  That is to say, the longest a buff will last is probably to the end of an encounter instead of multiple in-game hours.

[Ineth]

as opposed to just "I'll put 5 cool effects on me before we even start this fight,"

 

Only five??

 

This is what my character portraits tend to look like before boss fights in BG2 :

 

 

And that's with a mod that hides portrait icons from equipped gear, so those are all pre-battle buffs...

It may look extreme, but it's the only way I can beat SCS-enhanced mage/lich/dragon bosses with a medium-level party.

 

 

"Ok, please let me declare a blood feud on that tree over there

 

Wouldn't that be a "resin feud"?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Ineth

[magicwallis]

In relation to only-in-combat-buffs.  Perhaps you'll be able to sneak ahead with your scout to encounter enemies before they become hostile.  Giving the rest of your party a heads up to buff before charging in.  The encounter/combat* technically started with your scout.

 

*Are these two interchangeable?

[FlintlockJazz]

Yeah, if you haven't checked out Full Metal Alchemist, it's pretty good. There's also, specifically, "Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood." As far as I can tell, it's almost like a re-do (both series' cover the "same" story, but the overall story's a bit different in each), and apparently it's a lot closer to the original manga story than just-plain "Full Metal Alchemist." It's pretty good, though. They practice alchemy, which is LIKE magic (to us), but to them it's just science. But, the magical effect, itself, is just sort of a part of the natural world in their world; it's no different from certain temperatures producing fire, or chemicals mixing to make other substances. Formulas and symbols have the ability to alchemize stuff into different forms. So, they control this process, but they don't actually innately do anything.

 

Annnnyway... I digress. 8P

 

I do recommend Brotherhood, the first half (less actually, possibly third) is a re-do, but then it splits off from the original anime and goes in a completely different direction and place, sticking closer to the original manga (which wasn't finished at the time of the original anime, which is why they made up their own second half).  It's not just a bit different, but very different, and while the ending may be a matter of taste as to which one you prefer, I feel Brotherhood is tighter and more cohesive as a whole.  I highly suggest you watch it if you haven't already, it's worth watching even if you have already seen the other anime, once you get past the re-tread of common beginning.  Sorry had to fanboy! :D

[Stun]

This is what my character portraits tend to look like before boss fights in BG2 :

 

Bravo, sir. You win the Degenerate of the Year award!

 

 

Anyway, There is one type of spell I'm not seeing on the Wizard and Druid lists we've been given: Summons. Are there none in this game? Were they too "exploitable" in the IE games and therefore the concept had to be scrapped in the same way pre-buffing has?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Bravo, sir. You win the Degenerate of the Year award!

 

 

Anyway, There is one type of spell I'm not seeing on the Wizard and Druid lists we've been given: Summons. Are there none in this game? Were they too "exploitable" in the IE games and therefore the concept had to be scrapped in the same way pre-buffing has?

Ahh, the hilarity. Josh uses the word "degenerate" like one time, after other people have already brought it up in a topic, only to come in and clarify his views on it. Now, everything that's not in the game gets pegged as being absent because it was "degenerate," even though no dev even said that at all.

 

I also find it interesting that most things that simply aren't in the game are seen as having been removed, or, as Stun put it above, "scrapped," even though they simply just weren't in the game in the first place. Call of duty didn't scrap all mechanics that aren't present in a shooter. It just has its own mechanics that aren't other games' mechanics.

 

Only five??

 

This is what my character portraits tend to look like before boss fights in BG2 :

Haha. See, you just can't do that, AND have as much significance on heat-of-the-moment buffs, aka "danger zone" buffs (buffs and debuffs, etc. while in the fray of combat), at the same time. If you can put 17 effects on your characters, and they'll last to the end of combat, why would you ever NOT do that? You wouldn't.

 

And that's fine. That's one way of doing it, certainly (of designing the game, that is). Excluding pre-buffing is another way. As I've said before, it's like turn-based versus real-time combat. You can't do both at the same time. And if a game decides to go real-time, it's not because turn-based is inherently worse or something. Or vice versa.

 

I do recommend Brotherhood, the first half (less actually, possibly third) is a re-do, but then it splits off from the original anime and goes in a completely different direction and place, sticking closer to the original manga (which wasn't finished at the time of the original anime, which is why they made up their own second half).

I appreciate the clarification there. I've seen all of the original, and have only seen about the first 5-or-so episodes of Brotherhood, so I couldn't say from first-hand experience exactly what the differences were.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Lephys

[sims796]

 

Do wizards still get familiars, or have they been dropped?

 

AFAIK, they still get familiars as one of their starting abilities.

 

Familiar - All wizards can summon and dismiss familiars. Familiars are mobile "totems" for the wizard, providing defensive bonuses to allies near them and inflicting defensive penalties to enemies near them. Players can also access the master's spell list through the familiar, though casting a spell through the familiar still requires the master to physically cast it; it's simply targeted from the familiar. Familiars are weak and fragile. If a familiar is killed, the wizard takes damage and is unable to summon his or her familiar until he or she rests again.

 

 

What I want to know is whether or not Druids will have anything like it.

[Bryy]

 

Bravo, sir. You win the Degenerate of the Year award!

 

 

Anyway, There is one type of spell I'm not seeing on the Wizard and Druid lists we've been given: Summons. Are there none in this game? Were they too "exploitable" in the IE games and therefore the concept had to be scrapped in the same way pre-buffing has?

Ahh, the hilarity. Josh uses the word "degenerate" like one time, after other people have already brought it up in a topic, only to come in and clarify his views on it. Now, everything that's not in the game gets pegged as being absent because it was "degenerate," even though no dev even said that at all.

 

I also find it interesting that most things that simply aren't in the game are seen as having been removed, or, as Stun put it above, "scrapped," even though they simply just weren't in the game in the first place. Call of duty didn't scrap all mechanics that aren't present in a shooter. It just has its own mechanics that aren't other games' mechanics.

Seriously, let's please not start this "let's not make this stretch goal because if you do then you're taking money away from Y" tomfoolery.

[Tamerlane]

 

This is what my character portraits tend to look like before boss fights in BG2 :

 

Bravo, sir. You win the Degenerate of the Year award!

 

 

Anyway, There is one type of spell I'm not seeing on the Wizard and Druid lists we've been given: Summons. Are there none in this game? Were they too "exploitable" in the IE games and therefore the concept had to be scrapped in the same way pre-buffing has?

 

From the thread on the topic:

 

This is a big thread so I apologize for missing a lot of it.  Summoning is tricky business because there are a lot of ways it can become the de facto tactic, especially in a CRPG environment.  Casters do not currently have a huge number of summoning spells (chanters more than others), and using summons as hit point bag nose tackles can cause harm to the summoner, but I recognize that people like being able to use them.  Additionally, we do plan to have summoning figurines and similar goodies for people to use.  Sorry I don't have more details right now, but summoning is something I've only started revising recently.

 

 

2nd Ed./3.X charms/dominates and summons are incredibly powerful compared to the higher level raw damage spells because the summons give the party 1) disposable hit points 2) an extra action/actions every round 3) an assortment of resistances and abilities often not available to the party -- and they're able to do this all with one spell.  Summons should feel very useful and powerful, but they should not become the de facto tactic.  If it reaches that level, it's not really a tactic at all; it's just the thing you keep doing in every fight.

 

[Lephys]

I seem to recall vague mention of summons possibly being item-based? "Figurines" or something? I dunno if they'll be strictly item-based, or also part of casters' repertoire, or what. More info on summons would, indeed, be pleasing.

[Tamerlane]

That's, um... that's in the first quote, man.

[samm]

Hey, is that Rosbjerg on the second portrait?

[Stun]

 

Bravo, sir. You win the Degenerate of the Year award!

 

 

Anyway, There is one type of spell I'm not seeing on the Wizard and Druid lists we've been given: Summons. Are there none in this game? Were they too "exploitable" in the IE games and therefore the concept had to be scrapped in the same way pre-buffing has?

Ahh, the hilarity. Josh uses the word "degenerate" like one time,

 

One time? Have you lost your mind? It's the core of his entire gaming philosophy. He's Ahab and Degenerate Gameplay is his white whale. The phrase litters his mindspring posts. He has specifically cited it in discussions about 1) randomness; 2)death spells; 3) healing spells; 4) Resting; 5) Prebuffing; 6)The Vancian casting system; 7) Min-maxing, and a score of other subjects that are too numerous to mention.

 

And yes, yes, I know, he sees Degenerate gameplay as the developer's fault, not the player's. So it's not meant to be a criticism against us degenerates or whatever. But the impenetrable bottom line remains: There are dozens of mechanics that gamers consider FUN but he considers flaws that need to removed. This is a potential Dev vs. Player impasse that, if not balanced correctly, could cause a game to sell poorly even though it was brilliantly produced and even though its mechanics are logically flawless.

 

It's sorta like a little kid. He wants Ice cream, but mom gives him carrots and celery sticks instead because its more healthy. Well, she's right, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that ice cream is more appealing.

 

But this discussion is moot anyway. Summoning is In.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

That's, um... that's in the first quote, man.

Haha. So it is. I actually stopped reading that quote just before those last two sentences, mentally noting "ahh, yes, I remember this quote." But I didn't remember that it was there he made mention of summoning items.

 

<----- Is blond. 8P

 

One time? Have you lost your mind? It's the core of his entire gaming philosophy. He's Ahab and Degenerate Gameplay is his white whale. The phrase litters his mindspring posts. He has specifically cited it in discussions about 1) randomness; 2)death spells; 3) healing spells; 4) Resting; 5) Prebuffing; 6)The Vancian casting system; 7) Min-maxing, and a score of other subjects that are too numerous to mention.

Okay okay, so the "like one time" thing was an exaggeration. The point is, he hasn't called summoning "degenerate." He simply pointed out that it often becomes the blatantly best option. The "de facto tactic," as he put it. Which is true. So, I dunno why you'd pretend he hasn't specifically and objectively pointed out his qualms with existing summoning implementations, then just vaguely cite that he's said "degenerate" a bunch of times, and pretend that must be the ambiguous reason he's got for probably just getting rid of summoning all-together.

 

There are dozens of mechanics that gamers consider FUN but he considers flaws that need to removed.

Yes, because he's just replacing them with a void, and simply wants to remove fun things from the game, because they are fun to people. Orrr, the whole point could be that fun can still be had, AND the mechanic can function without its flaw/oversight.

 

It's sorta like a little kid. He wants Ice cream, but mom gives him carrots and celery sticks instead because its more healthy. Well, she's right, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that ice cream is more appealing.

So where do you draw the line, then? What justifies an amendment to a mechanic? Is anything less than the entire game being made out of "ice cream" just the wrongful removal of fun? Is the little kid still going to be having fun when he's got diabetes? Isn't it objectively productive to say "Hey, buddy... how 'bout we limit the amount of ice cream you can eat, and you eat some healthful, nutritious stuff, too, and then you can continue eating ice cream for the rest of your life, instead of having to stop when you're 20?"

 

You admit -- via metaphor, granted -- that Josh is "right," yet still act like his decisions are baseless or preposterous. Which is it?

 

But this discussion is moot anyway. Summoning is In.

It's in, it would seem, but we don't know if it's in the form of spells or not, which is specifically what you noted the absence of (in the spell lists).

[Bryy]

Stun, are you actually saying that the developers of the thing don't know what they are doing? I'd argue they know better than you or me.